Doing Advocacy for the Devil

09/11/2010

Okay. I am no doubt about to upset some folks. So be it. All I am doing is presenting a case. Nothing more. I do not support this case, but it is a valid one. And as such, it needs to be presented. I am donning my asbestos suit as you read.

There is a current debate in regards to the term marriage. Some argue that it is just a word and no more. But I think it is much more important than just a word. In fact it is crucial to the way society runs.

Humans are fickle creatures. We have very high ideals and very low base emotions all mixed up in a mixture of hormones and electrical synapses. Many never admit their low base ones as openly as we all should. They are in coded in what we like to call, the deadly sins.

The Seven Deadly Sins, also known as the Capital Vices or Cardinal Sins, is a classification of objectionable vices that has been used since early Christian times to educate and instruct followers concerning fallen humanity’s tendency to sin. The final version of the list consists of wrath, greed, sloth, pride, lust, envy, and gluttony.

On their own these traits are bad enough. But when combined with others, well, we then have significant problems.

WRATH: We humans are vicious. When we perceive a slight towards us or to our beliefs, we respond with blind anger. We create arguments that make this anger truthful to us and to justify our actions. This can be seen in humans from the play grounds to the battlefields. It is our most grievous fault and it is one that despite countless centuries of so-called civilisation, still thrives today.

GREED: Another trait that guides us. And again we create justifications for our actions inspired by it. The need to have more on its own is not of itself a problem. In fact it can lead to great things. But the need to have more at the expense of others is a root cause that can lead to wrath or to envy or to pride and so on.

SLOTH: This is a much misunderstood word. It does not mean lazy as such. It is much more than that.

Sloth is defined as spiritual or emotional apathy, neglecting what God has spoken, and being physically and emotionally inactive. Acedia is a Latin word, from Greekἁκηδείᾱ, meaning “Carelessness”.

Carelessness is not just about an individual here. It also refers to the inability of people to care for others. I see the current asylum seeker debate being that of Sloth. Some even say we should care less about these people and more about our own. This is an example of mixing Sloth with Greed and some may even throw in a little Pride as well. It is no coincidence that the creature we call the Sloth is half blind, half deaf and slow-moving. This trait is about how we perceive others and is the root of discrimination as far as I am concerned.

PRIDE: Another interesting trait. On one hand there is an element of virtue about pride. No one thinks it is a vice to look after one’s appearance or to take pride in one’s work. But it is also a vice. Pride can make one blind to the values of others. It can make you angry when you feel you are being outdone. It can lead to sloth in your treatment of others who you consider beneath you and so on. It can get worse when it can be turned into national pride to justify your wrath on another nation or another race. I say can because sometimes national pride is a good thing. In fact, if you haven’t cottoned on yet, all these traits are not bad in small doses. Yet it is easy to go from a small dose of national pride to ethnic cleansing.

LUST: Many assume this is in relation to sexual relations. And in a way, various religions have called it that. But again, it is deeper than this.

lust (lst)

n.

1. Intense or unrestrained sexual craving.

2.

a. An overwhelming desire or craving: a lust for power.

b. Intense eagerness or enthusiasm: a lust for life.

3. Obsolete Pleasure; relish.

intr.v.lust·ed, lust·ing, lusts

To have an intense or obsessive desire, especially one that is sexual.

It is not so much only about the desire. It is about unrestrained desire. Having a lust for life is one thing. But having a lust for life while disregarding the same craving in others can be troublesome. A desire for something is one thing. An obsessive desire is something else altogether. In the need to act upon an obsession, it is possible that this desire becomes the sole justification for all your actions and if this means others must suffer, then so be it.

ENVY: The desire to possess what someone else has is one thing if you go out and earn it. But if in the process of earning it and your lust for the object, you justify actions that can make you do things that infringe on these other traits, then you have another of those problems. It can lead to stealing or murder to obtain the object. Or it can not require you obtaining the object at all but demeaning it in the eyes of others so you do not have the object, but now the person that does has no standing in the eyes of others.

GLUTTONY: Some argue it is not a sin at all but a CONDITION. That is it’s a combination of all the above. You take your wrath out on objects. Your greed demands you take more. Your sloth makes you blind to your condition nor do you care. You take pride in your actions to obtain the things you then consume. You are obsessed in your actions to meet these demands. And you are envious of others who have things that you want. In its purest form, this is NOT just about food and drink although many believe this the case. I think it refers to anything that makes us do things totally influenced by these traits.

So I guess you are wondering what this has to do with gay marriage. Trust me I am getting there.

Society is a construct. It is a creation that is controlled by laws that allow us to keep a society from descending and anarchistic state where people seek to wallow in their own self desires and needs at the sake of all else. Now some argue some societies are better designed than others and in fact the history of man has been a work in progress where we have tested many forms of government that keeps humans together in this construct we created. The bigger a society, the more differences we have and every now and then some of these differences arise and a change to government or to laws are made. In Australia, we have seen this through the Magna Carta right to the 1967 referendum.

Now here is the bite. The purpose of any government is to create bigger societies. Bigger societies create bigger differences which create a problem for governments that require them to take action to address these problems while maintaining an environment that promotes growth and fairness. These days, if a government takes an action that is perceived as unjust or discriminatory, it will need to deal with the wrath that creates.

Now I finally get to the argument. There has been a recent call by some in the community for recognition of same-sex unions as marriages. Although this call may seem to be something to stop discrimination, it is not. In fact currently much of the discrimination that is aimed at same-sex unions has been already removed.

In the past a same-sex couple was discriminated against. It happened in hospitals. In wills. In superannuation. In many aspects of society that non same-sex couples had taken for granted. Laws can only remove the legal discrimination however. They can never remove perceived discrimination. One only has to look at what some of the Tea Party followers use in their rhetoric and propaganda. Words such as ‘You are not my massa’ are common place.

So if the gay community believe that obtaining the title of marriage will fix things, then think again. You have many decades of hate to put up with so prepare yourself for this unjustified assault.

But we are returned to the core principle of what is the purpose of society. And here this argument will anger many.

If the purpose of government is to promote growth, then I must point out that same-sex marriage does not meet this requirement. While it addresses the issue of stable households, it does nothing to offer society physical growth. Yes, technology allows for the advent of IVF but this is a very costly way to do something that nature has provided us as a species to do for hundreds of thousands of years for a lot cheaper than that. Yes same-sex couples can adopt and this is a good thing! But again, a same-sex union does not offer growth on its own.

I can imagine that many people are outraged by this argument. But it is what it is. For a society to grow, we need breeding pairs. It is that simple. While same-sex couples can reproduce, the way to achieve this requires them to go outside the union to do so. Yes I know that some breeding pairs in our society have trouble reproducing now. And I understand that many of these are already helped by IVF techniques or in the more radical cases, offered donor sperm or donor eggs, but again this is a very costly method of creating society and it requires going outside the union to do so.

Now while some breeding pairs have issues with fertility, all same-sex couples have these issues.

So yes. There is a difference between a union of a man and a woman and that of a same-sex couple. It is a physical one. No changing of laws will change that. This is not discrimination. This is what it is.

Sure, if you want to be recognised as ‘married’, then fight for it. But it is a union that offers little to the benefit of future population growth. Having said that though, there is a strong case for marriage for the sake of the participants themselves. It promotes a feeling of well being and stability in households. The bottom line though is the call for gay marriage about that?

If in the eyes of the participants of a union they are married then is that not enough? If in the eyes of the law you are given the same rights as any de-facto union and recognised as that then does this not address the matter of discrimination?

The question is is this call aimed for the benefit of the gay community or to spite those who are uncomfortable with gay unions? And if you create spite and resentment, is this the unity you truly desire? Now as I said at the start of this blog, this is not my argument, but it IS an argument and it has the right to be aired.